Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

[rob19]

We agree to disagree on the ban leading to a thriving black market. No doubt there will always be some supply and demand towards illegal substances. But guns, outside of ammunition, by and large do not have the repeat spending quality that drugs do. Once you have one you have it. As well, i would hope all law abiding citizens that hope to acquire protection would just go buy one of the non-banned weapons. Not to mention guns lack the addictive(for some, not all drugs) qualities that make selling drugs such a profit.

If that reasoning were true there wouldn't be a steady market currently for semi-autos, yet there is. Aside from the obvious fact that new people are born & die every day, the same attitude that makes people buy a new sports car every 5 years, or a new flat-screen every 3, or the new madden every year, is the same attitude that keeps gun demand steady. You might not understand it, I don't really get the appeal either, but apparently there's a sizable chunk of people in this country (approx 20%) who are into it; it's not that they need it, it's that they enjoy it.

Australia is a completely different beast than the United States, no where else in the world is gun enthusiasm as sky-high as it is here. 88.8% of every home owns some type of fire-arm; highest rate on the planet by a country-mile. I don't really like it, but that's the reality.

As far as mental health; in the same way it was easier for me to buy illegal drugs than legal drugs, I think the same could easily happen with weapons. One example of evidence is that the CT shooter had a harder time legally buying guns than he did otherwise. We just have differing opinions on how to handle it; you believe in a ban, I believe in regulation. It's really no more simple or complicated then that.

[TheWalrus]

If that reasoning were true there wouldn't be a steady market currently for semi-autos, yet there is. Aside from the obvious fact that new people are born & die every day, the same attitude that makes people buy a new sports car every 5 years, or a new flat-screen every 3, or the new madden every year, is the same attitude that keeps gun demand steady. You might not understand it, I don't really get the appeal either, but apparently there's a sizable chunk of people in this country (approx 20%) who are into it; it's not that they need it, it's that they enjoy it.

Australia is a completely different beast than the United States, no where else in the world is gun enthusiasm as sky-high as it is here. 88.8% of every home owns some type of fire-arm; highest rate on the planet by a country-mile. I don't really like it, but that's the reality.

As far as mental health; in the same way it was easier for me to buy illegal drugs than legal drugs, I think the same could easily happen with weapons. One example of evidence is that the CT shooter had a harder time legally buying guns than he did otherwise. We just have differing opinions on how to handle it; you believe in a ban, I believe in regulation. It's really no more simple or complicated then that.

That's not factually accurate. There are about 300 million guns in the United States and 310+ million people, but only 40-45% of households have a gun and only 30-34% of adults own one.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rob19]

I've seen that 88/100 statistic in a number of places, this is a possible explanation.

The 88/100 statistic doesn't mean 88% Americans own a gun. It is the total number of privately own guns divided by the total population. It does not account for the fact that most gun owners in the US own more than one gun.

Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns).

Either way, it's an enormous number.

[Spesh]

If that reasoning were true there wouldn't be a steady market currently for semi-autos, yet there is. Aside from the obvious fact that new people are born & die every day, the same attitude that makes people buy a new sports car every 5 years, or a new flat-screen every 3, or the new madden every year, is the same attitude that keeps gun demand steady. You might not understand it, I don't really get the appeal either, but apparently there's a sizable chunk of people in this country (approx 20%) who are into it; it's not that they need it, it's that they enjoy it.

Australia is a completely different beast than the United States, no where else in the world is gun enthusiasm as sky-high as it is here. 88.8% of every home owns some type of fire-arm; highest rate on the planet by a country-mile. I don't really like it, but that's the reality.

As far as mental health; in the same way it was easier for me to buy illegal drugs than legal drugs, I think the same could easily happen with weapons. One example of evidence is that the CT shooter had a harder time legally buying guns than he did otherwise. We just have differing opinions on how to handle it; you believe in a ban, I believe in regulation. It's really no more simple or complicated then that.

There is a vast difference between buying something legally because you enjoy it and buying something illegally because you enjoy it. Yes, i understand many buy pot regularly because they enjoy it despite it being illegal. But, by and large, there would be no need to replace such weapons(breaking down being an exception), whereas with drugs or alcohol there is. Many people do buy a variety of weapons despite already owning various others, but they did so legally. If what your suggesting were true, that they would continue buying it because they enjoy it, we wouldnt have seen a massive sale after Sandy Hook. One store owner sold 3 years worth of ammunition over a weekend. People went out and bought these products because they knew buying them illegally would be difficult and risky after a ban. If a ban was put in place, many would desire not to be in jail over a shinny new weapon....especially if they already have similar weapons or have access to legal weaponry.

Since the 70's the US government has made an active effort to lower drunk driving crimes. They have established educational programs and made an effort to vilify drunk driving. I cant turn on the television without seeing a anti-drunk driving commercial. Whats been the results? Drunk driving arrests have dropped. Its worked. While our culture is obsessed with firearms, its not outside the possibility of being smart and reasonable with how we educate people on the subject. We already educate people on the dangers of explosive devices. We already educate people on the dangers on nuclear warheads. Just add "dangers of assault rifles" to the list. Thats it.

[rob19]

There is a vast difference between buying something legally because you enjoy it and buying something illegally because you enjoy it. Yes, i understand many buy pot regularly because they enjoy it despite it being illegal. But, by and large, there would be no need to replace such weapons(breaking down being an exception), whereas with drugs or alcohol there is.

I understand that but it's irrelevant. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said selling guns would be AS profitable as drugs, but there is a large enough market for it for illegal sales to be a more than profitable venture.

Many people do buy a variety of weapons despite already owning various others, but they did so legally. If what your suggesting were true, that they would continue buying it because they enjoy it, we wouldnt have seen a massive sale after Sandy Hook. One store owner sold 3 years worth of ammunition over a weekend. People went out and bought these products because they knew buying them illegally would be difficult and risky after a ban. If a ban was put in place, many would desire not to be in jail over a shinny new weapon....especially if they already have similar weapons or have access to legal weaponry.

Exactly, it's easier for sane, law-abiding citizens to buy such weapons, but harder for insane, or people with criminal backgrounds. This was exactly the case with the CT shooter. He was not sane, he didn't pass the background check, the regulation worked. He had to go about obtaining those fire-arms in an illegal manner.

Since the 70's the US government has made an active effort to lower drunk driving crimes. They have established educational programs and made an effort to vilify drunk driving. I cant turn on the television without seeing a anti-drunk driving commercial. Whats been the results? Drunk driving arrests have dropped. Its worked. While our culture is obsessed with firearms, its not outside the possibility of being smart and reasonable with how we educate people on the subject. We already educate people on the dangers of explosive devices. We already educate people on the dangers on nuclear warheads. Just add "dangers of assault rifles" to the list. Thats it.

Has drunk-driving ever not been vilified? I'm sorry, I just don't buy the argument that you can just make anything you want to illegal & it'll solve the problem, or that people will stop engaging in it. Some things you can, & other things you can try to, but I believe you create more problems than you solve. I simply prefer regulation over a ban in this instance.

[PhinzN703]

Hit me up once you're back on live, we'll game it up. A bunch of Finheaveners are on there, but I've only really ever had a chance to play with Spesh. We'll turn ourselves into violent, baby-punching, rock eating neanderthals, since that's what video games do to people...

What games do you guys play?

[Spesh]

I understand that but it's irrelevant. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said selling guns would be AS profitable as drugs, but there is a large enough market for it for illegal sales to be a more than profitable venture.

Exactly, it's easier for sane, law-abiding citizens to buy such weapons, but harder for insane, or people with criminal backgrounds. This was exactly the case with the CT shooter. He was not sane, he didn't pass the background check, the regulation worked. He had to go about obtaining those fire-arms in an illegal manner.

Has drunk-driving ever not been vilified? I'm sorry, I just don't buy the argument that you can just make anything you want to illegal & it'll solve the problem, or that people will stop engaging in it. Some things you can, & other things you can try to, but I believe you create more problems than you solve. I simply prefer regulation over a ban in this instance.

Where is the market now? We already have bans on weapons and there isnt a rampant problem. There are always going to be a small percentage of crime involving...well anything. Theres a small percentage of crimes committed by women's breast(thats not a joke, women occassional try and smother men...which is exactly how i want to go out). These sort of things will always happen. But to the point of access your suggesting? Just cant see it. Despite the relative ease in which explosives can be made, the crime rate is so low i havent even been able to find the numbers. The ban has worked.

Not all crimes will follow that singular example. All criminals are not going to do things exactly the same way as the CT shooter. The goal isnt to prevent all shootings, its to lower the number and lower the casualty rate. Had James Holmes used a revolver in Aurora, 70 people wouldnt have been harmed. Universal background checks and some sort of mental health evaluation are a must. But being sane doesnt mean you are immune to criminal activity. Law abiding individuals can still have weapons for their intended purpose, but those who want to use them maliciously would no longer be able to commit mass murder.

Drunk driving has not always been illegal. It wasnt vilified to any degree. The government has made an active effort to lower the number of incidents. Through education and propaganda, people have learned drunk driving is not acceptable. And the rate has lowered. Granted, it hasnt cured the problem of drunk driving, but less and less individuals are harmed each year because of the steps our government, and others, have taken.

In 2010, the rate of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities per 100,000 population was 3.3, representing a 64% decrease since 1982, when record keeping began, and 48% since the inception of The Century Council in 1991. What this translates into is, for every 100,000 people in the US in 2010, slightly more than three people were killed in a drunk driving fatal crash, a rate that has been cut almost in half over the past two decades - down from a rate of 6.3 in 1991.

Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 31% of the total vehicle traffic fatalities in 2010.

Between 1991 and 2010, the rate of drunk driving fatalities per 100,000 population has decreased 48% nationally, and 63% among those under 21. These statistics and others are positive indicators of the gains being made to fight drunk driving, and while The Century Council cannot claim to be the sole influence in these reductions, it is likely we have played a significant role in reaching these historic low levels.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The first jurisdiction in the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to adopt laws against drunken driving was
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in 1910, with
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and others following. Early laws simply prohibited driving while intoxicated, requiring proof of a state of intoxication with no specific definition of what level of inebriation qualified.
^{To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.}
The first generally-accepted legal BAC limit was 0.15%.^{[
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
]}

In 1938, the American Medical Association created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents". At the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".

In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(MADD) and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(SADD) and leaders like
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Significantly,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Im not against regulation. By no means. I have no problem with people legally owning weapons. Our opinion just differs on what weapons people should be allowed to own and whether bans in of themself are effective. I understand where much of your passion comes from and can see your point of view. I just dont see a ban on weapons as the same the ban on drugs. They're just two completely different animals....especially since Americans understand why they cannot buy certain weapons already. There is a growing comfort with weed legality. I havent see any sort of growing comfort on explosive device legality.

[Dolphins9954]

The people's right to buy semi-auto rifles has been around probably since the creation of such guns. I know you guys think it's not a big deal to ban these weapons but it is. These are weapons Americans have bought, sold and owned for decades or more. The 2nd amendment is our right just like all the other amendments. A better comparison to these attacks on the the 2nd would be things like banning anti-government speech or banning warrants for searches or even banning some religions. And let's not forget NDAA. IMO you guys are no different. As for the reducing "mass murder" by banning weapons that account for less than 3% of all gun crimes. Don't forget the VT Shooting and 65% of all "mass shootings" that didn't involve semi-auto rifles. In short your way doesn't make us ANY SAFER!!!! While taking away liberties that Americans have enjoyed for so many years. Pat yourself on the back and think you made the world a better place when in fact it didn't do s***.

[Spesh]

The people's right to buy semi-auto rifles has been around probably since the creation of such guns. I know you guys think it's not a big deal to ban these weapons but it is. These are weapons Americans have bought, sold and owned for decades or more. The 2nd amendment is our right just like all the other amendments. A better comparison to these attacks on the the 2nd would be things like banning anti-government speech or banning warrants for searches or even banning some religions. And let's not forget NDAA. IMO you guys are no different. As for the reducing "mass murder" by banning weapons that account for less than 3% of all gun crimes. Don't forget the VT Shooting and 65% of all "mass shootings" that didn't involve semi-auto rifles. In short your way doesn't make us ANY SAFER!!!! While taking away liberties that Americans have enjoyed for so many years. Pat yourself on the back and think you made the world a better place when in fact it didn't do s***.

The government wouldnt just grab your weapon and give you the bird. You would be finacially compensated.

We have not reached a consensus on what the second amendment even means. There has been repeatedly debates and various clarifications for (at least) decades. The Supreme Court has...i wouldnt say changed its mind, but made differing rulings depending on who is on the bench. All of this is beside the point that you are already prevented from buying certain weapons. Thats "against your second amendment" right, but no one has seemed to mind all that much.

We've reached a consensus on the first amendment. Occassionally we need a clarification, especially when it involves new technology, but so far the rulings have stayed consistent: almost everything is allowed, no child porn.

And other countries that have banned the weapons have seen their crime rate drop. The world is a safer place. And id welcome a 3% decrease, that would save a hell of alot of lives. Isnt that a worthy goal?

[Dolphins9954]

The government wouldnt just grab your weapon and give you the bird. You would be finacially compensated.

We have not reached a consensus on what the second amendment even means. There has been repeatedly debates and various clarifications for (at least) decades. The Supreme Court has...i wouldnt say changed its mind, but made differing rulings depending on who is on the bench. All of this is beside the point that you are already prevented from buying certain weapons. Thats "against your second amendment" right, but no one has seemed to mind all that much.

We've reached a consensus on the first amendment. Occassionally we need a clarification, especially when it involves new technology, but so far the rulings have stayed consistent: almost everything is allowed, no child porn.

And other countries that have banned the weapons have seen their crime rate drop. The world is a safer place. And id welcome a 3% decrease, that would save a hell of alot of lives. Isnt that a worthy goal?

No.

Let's ban another constitutionally protected amendment in the Bill of Rights that's killed far more people than anything in the history of the planet. Let's ban religion.

As much as I hate religion and the zealots behind them "that has resulted in so many deaths that only the debt clock would beat it". I would never support banning, curtailing or infringing the Bill Of Rights and liberties that we're born with, even if it meant saving one life or less than 3%. The 2nd amendment along with ALL the rest has already been trampled on more than enough times. This attack is no different than the rest of them over the past 12 years and more. Once again government must take away liberties for our safety. And every time we lose both.